We've had someone here say they have given like $1,200 I believe -- can't remember who.

I've got to be over 1200 by now, I'm definitely over $1,000. (1122.93! dammit, I'm no quite there!) To my credit though I've stopped buying ships. What they are selling for today seems crazy. It feels like they really ramped up prices in 2014 on ships and anything that gets released now just has a big fat extra chunk on the price because that can.

CIG has stated that ships will get more expensive closer to release. However, most of the ships that have been released recently have been large. When you look at the Vanguard, which is better spec'ed and larger than the Super Hornet, it commands a price tag to match ($250, versus the $180 of the SH). The Herald was cheap at $85, relative to other ships.

I'm probably going to upgrade my Super Hornet to the Vanguard and leave it at that, to go along with my Mustang Delta, Mustang Omega and Herald. Well, I'll probably pick up the third starter ship as it's a two-seater and comes with LTI. That said, I intend to pick up some more merchandise and will be buying a ticket for CitizenCon if I can, what with it being in the UK.

NegaDeath wrote on Mar 31, 2015, 11:04:Nope. Just nope. Strafing? I backed a Wing Commander successor not a FPS. There isn't always something to hide behind, nor should I need to. If there is no dogfight there is no space sim.

Wing Commander was a great game for the time but it's not a physically simulated game like Star Citizen, something which was promised from the start. Fans have been very vocal in their demand for 6DoF. Strafing is an important flight mechanic and by not using it you're limiting your experience. Without strafing you can't move in a non-linear manner whilst still tracking / attacking an opponent. Of course if you head in a straight line to an opponent and they do the same you're going to end up with incredibly closing speeds, as you're effectively flying at twice the speed (hence why head-on-collisions are so dangerous on the roads).

If you're not willing to learn the mechanics then I don't have any sympathy.

NegaDeath wrote on Mar 31, 2015, 11:04:If the core gameplay is this bad after all this time in development then I've wasted my money and Roberts has wasted my good faith. I'm not getting what I backed, all the extra layers added on top won't change that.

I reject the notion that it is bad. When I backed this game I did so based on Chris Roberts' history in the genre and my like of his previous games. Star Citizen has exceeded my very high expectations. I'm sorry that you don't feel the same but, being realistic, it's impossible for everybody to like the game.

You're getting what you backed, you just had expectations that were unreasonable for what was promised. If I promise you a birthday party and you assume that there's going to be a clown and I hire a magician that doesn't change what was originally promised - the problem is your expectations.

NegaDeath wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 22:13:Well I updated and tried "Arena Commander" for the first time in over 6 months....and it fucking sucks. I've been patient, giving them time, not playing into all the negativity or caring about the ever growing scope of the game. None of that really bothered me. But I godamn hate the flight model. It's space joust. Enemies fly at you, you fly at them, you pass each other at incredible speeds far too high to ever turn into their tail and get into a nice chase or dogfight. Over and over and over. Oh and you damn near pass out every time you turn.

The flight model is constantly being tweaked. Some fans don't like the changes introduced in 1.1 and I would be surprised if we don't see further changes before release. That said, I don't have a problem with any of the mechanics and I came from games like Tie Fighter, Wing Commander and Starlancer. Flying straight at your enemies is a terrible strategy - you should be using asteroids for cover and strafing to approach them from the side or behind. As for blacking out, that depends on the ship but it sounds like your boosting out of manoeuvres, which disables G-Safe (the system which prevents excessive g-force). I love the feel but if you don't then you could try playing about with settings like ESP and Comstab. Are you playing on mouse or joystick?

Further, we haven't seen elements like stealth properly implemented in the game yet - when you have the ability to mask signals, limit emissions and disable and board ships then the experience will be substantially different. We only have fighters at the moment (along with a few racers) - no capital ships, no multicrew ships, etc.

ItBurn wrote on Mar 31, 2015, 04:09:Speak for yourself. I want a Freelancer spiritual successor. We're both getting it though, with Squadron 42 and Star Citizen.

Personally I didn't care for Freelancer. I was hoping for a spiritual successor to Wing Commander and Starlancer, which is what I see. In fact I think this game will easily surpass them.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 31, 2015, 07:52:We've had someone here say they have given like $1,200 I believe -- can't remember who.

I've spent $400 but that includes physical merchandise (T-shirts) and gifts for my family (I bought a copy for my brother and father, as well as an upgrade for my other brother two already had the game). My disposable income is limited but I'm happy to support a project that for me is delivering. For what it's worth I've never paid for any online subscriptions and don't usually buy games at full price. This is my favourite genre and Chris Roberts is responsible for some of my favourite games.

nin wrote on Mar 31, 2015, 08:28:What you're getting is very much up in the air right now.

It's really not. The game is delivering what it set out to plus a lot more. The only fault is that it's taking longer than expected but I'm happy to wait a bit longer for a better game.

Kosumo wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 18:13:Am I right that at $77 million the streach goal of face cancer is now in the game?

Nah, it'll be $80m, along with menstrual cycles and space AIDS.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 18:20:Uhhhh... Anger? I'm quite calm, actually. You're the one wishing face cancer on strangers over the internet. Grow that neckbeard out a little more. It suits you.

I assume 'neckbeard' is some sort of American thing, as I've not heard of such terminology. Is it fashionable?

harlock wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 17:51:no no you missed my point... the dude hasnt made any updates to his log or been seen on his forums since early Jan

CIG releases community videos every week, has a detailed monthly report, has active mods in the forums and has demoed a huge amount of content, yet is still accused of being a scam. Indie developer doesn't release any information for months and nobody cares.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 17:22:Does it promise all the breadth of Star Citizen? No. However, I'd argue it's more of a game at this point even still.

Let the anger flow through you. Palpatine would be proud. Perhaps there are a few kittens you can kick.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 16:32:What's happening now? A few disparate modules that do not in any way equal a game? Selling some stupid in-game assets (that you can't even use yet) for huge amounts of money? Let's see, what else... Broken promises maybe?

The game's now due out until next year, so of course it's not all playable yet. Broken promises? The game is bigger and better than ever, offering way more than was originally promised. How often does that happen? If you're talking about delays then I assume you think Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament, etc, were all shit too? I mean, it's not like they're some of the most critical acclaimed PC games in history or anything.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 16:32:Thanks for the reviews. Didn't ask for them, but thanks for taking the time to help the community anyway. I was merely listing games that have come a lot closer to being an actual game and didn't cost as much as a small country's gross national product.

You listed a bunch of mostly shit games that aren't even comparable to Star Citizen. And it's not just the budget, as Star Citizen looked much better from the reveal.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 16:32:Aww, poor baby! What's the matter? Don't like it when someone gives their opinion? Nobody asked for yours either.

Saying that you want the game to fail isn't an opinion - it's an assertion. But this isn't the time or place for an English lesson.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 16:32:I get it that you wasted a ton of cash on this non-game, and you're super hopeful that it pays off at some point, but by then will you even be able to enjoy it?

I'm already enjoying it, thanks. In fact it's one of my most played games. I regularly play Vanduul Swarm, both singleplayer and co-op. I'll be playing it even more when Star Marine launches and the social module is released. There's nothing wasted about the money I've spent.

ForgedReality wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 16:32:Sure you're not putting too much faith into this ridiculous mess? You don't think they've overpromised at all? Lots of games have been made in less time and look better, play better, and are generally more fun, than this collection of tech demos.

The last games I got this excited about were Unreal Tournament and Half-Life 2. Both delivered. Further, as I've said numerous times, I'm already enjoying the game.

Creston wrote on Mar 30, 2015, 09:12:I like how they've now gone from selling ships to a non-complete game to selling "limited concepts" of ships to a non-complete game.

It's no different from before. The ships have always been sold at the concept phase, then again for hangar release and flyable release.

As I've mentioned before, if it wasn't for this business model then we'd have never seen a AAA game in this genre. Nobody is obligated to buy now and even if they do they can back at the minimum level (they even offered limited edition game packages for $20).

People are backing this game because the more money that is raised the better the game is going to be - that's entirely different to EA and Activision, where they charge excessive amounts for DLC that should be free with the game. With other publishers you pay over the odds for LESS content. All the content being added to SC, including ships like this, is included for free in the game. I backed at the minimum level for the Kickstarter but increased my pledge when Arena Commander came out and I enjoyed playing the game and want to support it.

If all the activations are coming from the same IP address and all that's being changed is the graphics card then there's no reason to limit that. If we were talking about multiple computers across multiple IPs in different geographical locations then I could MAYBE understand it.

This is a bullshit form of DRM that doesn't actually achieve anything but piss off legitimate users. Is the average person going to come across this issue? No, but the reality, as seen here, is that is DOES affect legitimate users.

Tumbler wrote on Mar 23, 2015, 16:35:If that is the case, should they be flyable in AC right now? It seems if they are too powerful to be sold in the REC store for fear that people would only use those ships then perhaps they need to be taken out of circulation or at least restricted to only combat with those ships. (m50, Delta, 350r, SH)

They need to do better at balancing matches, as even if you have the Super Hornet you're not competitive unless you have custom weapons (which until this patch were only available with UEC which can be bought with cash). It's a legitimate criticism and one that is mentioned a lot on the forums. In fact it was one of the reasons the REC system was prioritised, so mitigate the criticism of P2W. CIG needs to ensure that the game doesn't end up with everyone using a Super Hornet with one particular weapons loadout, as otherwise that will be pretty tedious.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the multicrew ships start getting added, as that should curb the dominance of the Super Hornet. It should also provide a more varied arena, at the bigger ships will generally be slower and less manoeuvrable which provides a trade-off.

Vall Forran wrote on Mar 23, 2015, 17:18:The flight mechanics that CR talks so highly about are so ridiculously non-existent. When docking...your ship stops on a dime, no inertia. It feels more like frogger than a real space sim. You just slam your ship onto the platform, then it says "landing gear deployed" followed by "docking permission granted". Elite would have shot my ass off five times by then.

There's a manual landing mode. I haven't tried it myself yet but I think it's the N or M button. One of the reasons the patch was delayed so long was because the landing system was causing problems. It's not a fully developed system yet.

As for the gameplay, it is largely the same. The changes aren't readily noticeable to most players. For instance, there are new animations and you can now go prone; the engine have been ported to 64-bit precision, meaning it supports larger levels and lays the groundwork for multicrew ships; the landing system is there but won't be noticed by most players; there's a new ship. The big changes will come in the next month, with the FPS module launching and the social module hopefully. They've also said that new maps are on the way, as we've been stuck with the same two for quite a while now - that was because they were limited in size because of the 32bit precision.

Zor wrote on Mar 23, 2015, 14:27:I can't wait to see what a Retaliator or Constellation will do against the Super Hornets. The high shield strength combined with good player-crewed gun turrets should be a rather potent combo.

Yeah, the Retaliator looks like a pretty awesome ship. I'm tempted to do a cross-chassis upgrade to the Retaliator or the Redeemer from my Super Hornet. Both my brothers own the game, so it would be great to all play on the same ship.

Pr()ZaC wrote on Mar 22, 2015, 23:26:What can you rent with that kind of mone...err...REC?

There are six ships that cost less than 5000REC, plus the 300i and Mustang Gamma are only 5500REC. The Cutlass is 10000REC and the Hornet is 11000REC. Further, at the moment it is quite easy to earn REC - you can earn 20000REC per hour according to the forums. Even if you do badly in a match you can easily earn around 1000REC.

Tumbler wrote on Mar 23, 2015, 10:22:The rec store works well, it's alarming that the top of the line ships are missing. SH in particular is the ship most people point to for the game being p2w...so how does that ship not make it in!?

They've stated that they want to get the balancing right before they allow everybody to buy the most powerful ships in the game. That's why the M50 and 350R are missing (they're the fastest ships) and the Super Hornet and Mustang Delta are too (they're the most powerful). While it's great that everybody can now earn better ships the problem is that it effectively discourages people from using anything but, which is something they have yet to address.

Eirikrautha wrote on Mar 22, 2015, 20:38:CR selling virtual spaceships is incredible, but believable. But RSI is now renting ships in an incomplete game??? For real money??? Seriously??? Is there an IQ maximum for backers of this "game"?

Apparently it's higher than yours, as the rental system is the exact opposite of what you asserted - it allows you to rent equipment WITHOUT spending ANY real money. In fact you CAN'T spend real money to rent ships or equipment - it has to be earned. Because of all the accusations of P2W they accelerated development of the rental system to allow backers with a lowly Aurora to earn the Super Hornet and better weapons to accompany it. Not only that but as a bonus they've given out 5000REC to spend straight away.

Julio wrote on Mar 22, 2015, 18:33:I have to think it helps with the fundraising to claim version 1.1 rather than 0.1. Regardless of what I think of Star Citizen, I believe they're very, very good at raising money.

I don't see it myself. The game clearly states that it is alpha on every page in the store and a lot of the money is coming from existing backers pledging more.

I'm interested to see what happens with the FPS module, Star Marine, as if that pushes up the total significantly then it's clear that people are backing because they want to play the game, not because they're under the impression it is final or more developed than it actually is. People hear the stories about the funding and the 100GB requirements, etc, and check out the game, like what they see and back it.

The game was pulling in millions for releases prior to 1.0, so I don't see any supporting evidence for your claim. They could call it 0.01 or 35 and there wouldn't be any perceivable difference to funding.